U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business
Forum
On
Encouraging and Expanding Entrepreneurship: Examining the
Federal Role
March 1, 2001
Testimony
By
Terry E. Bibbens
The Entrepreneur in Residence
Office of Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
Note: The views expressed are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy, the
U.S. Small Business Administration or the Administration.
Thank you, Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Kerry, and
members of the Committee, for convening this important forum
and for inviting me to participate. I am pleased to provide
the views of a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture
capitalist who has had the privilege of working in the
Office of Advocacy these past six years on many of our
national technology and entrepreneurship issues. It has been
a pleasure to work with your committee and your very able
staff to address legislation to improve the climate for high-
tech entrepreneurs.
I was asked to provide some comments today on programs in
the U.S. that have worked well, those that had problematic
elements, and the differences between the U.S. and foreign
entrepreneurship climates. The major basis for my
conclusions was the fortunate experience of growing up
professionally in the early years of Silicon Valley. I
graduated from Stanford with a BSEE (Bachelor of Science,
Electrical Engineering) in 1958. I was exposed to the unique
permeability of the Stanford/industry climate as an
undergraduate when we were expected to address real-world
local industry problems as part of our class work. The best
students were invited to work on Hewlett-Packard
assignments; the rest of the class had to work on more
mundane tasks.
After graduation, I worked in two local Silicon Valley
companies before starting my company in 1968. All during my
professional life in the Valley, my Stanford professors were
working with us to help us solve particularly difficult
technical challenges. It wasn't until I sold my company
successfully in 1978 and moved to San Diego that I really
understood my extreme good fortune of having been part of
the Silicon Valley experiment. There is not a shred of doubt
in my mind that I could not have started my company and
successfully grown it anywhere else in the United States;
and certainly not anywhere else in the world. Silicon Valley
was, and still is, the best environment for mentoring
entrepreneurs, networking them with investors and service
providers, and providing an infrastructure for building
companies. In my opinion, that is why the National Venture
Capital Association annual reports continue to show that
Silicon Valley receives almost one-third of all VC
investments in the United States-31 percent in 2000. The
dollars flow where the probability of success is high. I do
not for a minute believe that 31 percent of the technical
talent of the U.S. resides in Silicon Valley. I grew up
there and know my peers-they are no brighter than
entrepreneurs in the rest of the country, or the world-they
just have a uniquely supportive climate.
What do I believe we can learn from Silicon Valley as you
address the Federal Role for Encouraging and Expanding
Entrepreneurship? First, the Federal Government did play a
role a long time ago to help nurture some of the success of
the Valley. The Cold War brought funding to Stanford (and
Stanford Research Institute) in the 1950s and 1960s that
resulted in many technically challenging classified projects
that utilized the best of our professors, graduate students
and even some under-grads. These academics worked closely
with the local industry and the Federal intelligence
communities to bring the best possible products to our
defense forces as quickly as possible. The environment in
the Valley was identical to that of the MIT-Radiation
Laboratories of World War II, according to those older
leaders who experienced both. Thus, the Boston Route-128
phenomenon and the Silicon Valley experience both have a
genesis in the Federal R&D funding channeled through the
universities.
However, similar funding was provided to other universities
in the U.S. (and around the world), and Route-128 and
Silicon Valley environments weren't created there. From my
personal experience, as well as studying the analyses of
good researchers, my conclusion is that the unique
environments created in these two sites were the result of
university leaders who encouraged the close linkages between
their faculty and the local industries-mostly small
businesses at that time.(1)
There is something equally important to the Silicon Valley
experiment to discuss with you today-the absence of any
Federal policies focused on this region. From my personal
knowledge of Silicon Valley in the early days, the industry
leaders (Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, especially) felt
that the region had to "bootstrap" our own climate to
support us since Washington didn't know we existed (except
for the intelligence community). That is why they started
the Western Electronic Manufacturer's Association (WEMA) in
Palo Alto, California, which later transitioned into the
American Electronics Association (AEA). Our venture capital
climate started with successful entrepreneurs who disliked
retirement. Our local California-headquartered banks (Bank
of America, Crocker, and Wells Fargo) provided other wealthy
investors. The 3000 Sand Hill Road phenomenon grew up
because local investors preferred to invest in local
entrepreneurs, and initially, the Eastern VCs didn't believe
in the western upstart companies.
A more recent example of the creation of a very robust high-
tech environment is the San Diego, California, experience of
the past ten years. The Office of Advocacy sponsored a
research project to document the role of the University of
California, San Diego, in the development of high-tech
clusters. This report, entitled Developing High-Technology
Communities: San Diego, April 2000, is available from the
Office of Advocacy.(2) It demonstrates clearly that the key
ingredient for bringing success to this region was the
leadership of a visionary-Chancellor Richard C. Atkinson,
now President of the U.C. System. It was also a bootstrap
experience, now reaping the harvest of large Federal R&D
funding and venture capital investments. This report has
been well received by other regions in the U.S. and other
countries that are interested in what local efforts can
accomplish. It is a remarkable story and I encourage review
by your committee and staffs.
There always has been a robust U.S. entrepreneurial climate
for technology companies from the earliest days of our
nation. We've always had the strongest patent laws in the
world to protect the inventor during the early concept to
commercialization phase. Those advocates who wish to make
our patent law harmonize with those of other countries run
into violent objections from the experienced inventors who
truly understand these issues.(3)
We also have relatively lenient bankruptcy laws compared to
those of most other nations. In the U.S. the failure of an
entrepreneur is primarily acknowledged as a tough learning
experience-both to the entrepreneur and the investors. In
many other countries, this same experience is viewed as an
indelible mark that forever identifies the entrepreneur as a
failure. In some cultures, it can provide a permanent
blemish on the family name. In most countries the personal
impact of failure can result in financial ruin for the
entrepreneur for the rest of his/her career. And, according
to a respected Japanese academic studying the differences
between the U.S. and Japanese entrepreneurial climates,
failure in that country is so devastating to the
entrepreneur that the only solution to many of them is a
very large life insurance policy.
During my career in Silicon Valley I've had the pleasure of
hosting a number of delegations from the Parliaments and
Ministries from England, Sweden and Japan who wished to
learn how our unique climate was created. Without exception,
their focus was on the risk of entrepreneurship-not on the
reward. The penalties for failure were so devastating in
their countries that they could not envision why an
entrepreneur would risk starting a company.
A new experience gained during my tenure at the Office of
Advocacy was the difficulty many good entrepreneurial start-
ups have in obtaining equity capital-if they are not in
Silicon Valley. This issue was first brought to our
attention by the delegates to the 1995 White House
Conference for Small Businesses.(4) The success of the VC
industry has brought in so much capital that the average
fund is now over $150 million. With that size of fund, the
VCs can't make small investments. And, the securities rules
for private, individual accredited investors (angels) were
so onerous that it was difficult for entrepreneurs to find
angels without violating securities laws in most states. The
Office of Advocacy implemented the ACE-Net program to
streamline this process.(5) We are pleased to report that 40
states have adopted streamlined procedures using the ACE-Net
system to simplify entrepreneur and angel interaction on
both an intrastate and interstate basis. We applaud the
accomplishments of Congress in streamlining some important
securities laws as a part of the National Securities Markets
Improvement Act of 1996.
Access to equity capital is a particularly difficult problem
for women and minority entrepreneurs. While the data is
limited, we have determined that less than three percent of
venture capital goes to women-owned businesses. At the angel
investment level, there are very few women angel groups in
the U.S. Yet, women and minorities are starting more
companies than white males. We don't have many answers to
the dilemma, but we are working to support more local
mentoring groups and women- and minority angel and venture
capital groups through the ACE-Net network.
Many state programs have been developed to improve the
access to local venture capital. Many of them are associated
with ACE-Net and provide mentoring and guidance for small
companies interested in learning how to access equity
capital. A good list of the best programs in the U.S. is on
the ACE-Net web site at:
https://ace-net.sr.unh.edu/pub/carl.htm?TYPE=wel
Another organization working successfully in this area is
the National Association of Seed and Venture Funds at
http://www.nasvf.org
I also wish to applaud the recent re-authorization of the
SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program by
Congress last year. This is arguably the most successful
Federal R&D program-in the world! It is helping to bring
small businesses talents to address our national research
needs, and is also providing very high-risk capital to fund
leading edge research. The Federal and State Technology
Partnership (FAST) and Mentoring programs included in your
SBIR re-authorization bill last year will provide improved
linkages at the local level to support entrepreneurship and
commercialization.
The Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, of
the National Research Council, Washington, DC, issued their
report "SBIR-An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast
Track Initiative" on November 17, 2000. It may be obtained
from the National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1-800-624-
6242) and is listed as ISBN Number 0-309-06929-7. The report
lists the following key findings of the SBIR program:
ú It is contributing to the DoD overall research and
development goals.
ú It provides a powerful demonstration effect for other
researchers.
ú It provides lasting knowledge generation.
ú It generates a positive social rate of return (84
percent for SBIR research projects, versus 25 percent for
non-SBIR research projects).
The STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer) program is
before you this year and we support re-authorization of this
program. We would be pleased to work with you to determine
if there are methodologies to improve and streamline the
linkages between the universities and small businesses on
this program. We've seen some very productive standardized
licensing agreements between the private sector and the
universities that we believe might form the basis for a
streamlined STTR procedure.
From the Silicon Valley, Route-128 and San Diego experiences
that I'm presenting today I draw your attention to the
following issues that I believe are important to the
process:
ú First-do no harm! Much of the entrepreneurial success
in Silicon Valley and Route-128 was due to the absence of
governmental controls and oversight. As we consider policy
changes we request that a serious look be conducted of the
unintended consequences of good intentions. A case in point
was some recent discussion on how to reduce small-cap fraud
that was originating in New York state. One idea was to
raise the net worth limit for accredited investor from $1
million to $3 million, under the view that this would limit
the investor pool to more sophisticated individuals.
However, this would have drastically reduced the number of
angel investors in all states that could be reached by
budding entrepreneurs. Luckily, wiser heads prevailed and
because the real issue was problematic securities laws in
New York, the decision was to limit securities sales from
New York companies to New York residents.
ú Improve university and small business commercial
linkages. Federal R&D funding to universities usually
doesn't result in automatic linkages to industry-Silicon
Valley, Route-128 and San Diego are not the norm, they are
unique and are the result of strong academic leaders. Public
policy that encourages these linkages, particularly to small
businesses, results in robust local entrepreneurial
climates, high commercialization rates of federal R&D, and
high taxpayer payback.
ú Continue to encourage small business participation in
Federal R&D programs. The SBIR and STTR programs are highly
successful and have the highest commercialization rate of
all Federal R&D program. Encouraging other Federal R&D
programs to include small businesses will pay high dividends
to our taxpayers.
ú Entrepreneurial failure is to be expected. Venture
capitalists know this full well and it is the burden they
bear to be able to participate in the rewards of the
successful companies. The experienced VCs will tell you that
they are very happy if two out of ten investments are
winners. If three out of ten are winners the VCs have no
trouble attracting significantly larger rounds for their
next fund.
ú Our bankruptcy laws should not be changed
significantly. We don't want to cause strong barriers to
entrepreneurship. Investors from Europe, the Middle East,
and Asia, send their venture capital funds to U.S. VC firms
to invest in our entrepreneurs. They don't spend significant
portions of their VC investments in their own countries with
strict bankruptcy laws.
ú Our patent laws should continue to protect the small
inventor during the crucial early stages of
commercialization. Attempts to liberalize our early
disclosure constraints on patent applications should be
discouraged.
ú Securities regulations should permit improved
entrepreneur and angel access. Local angel (accredited)
investors are absolutely vital to the process of creating
high-tech start-ups. Balancing the needs for investor
protection and capital formation are important. The seasoned
angels are careful to understand that these are high-risk
investments and limit their investments in these companies
to a small percentage of their portfolio.
I'd like to add some support for your interest in the topic
of today's forum. The Office of Advocacy is charged with
gathering the economic research on the small business sector
of our economy. A recent focus has been on the impact of
technology on job creation and improved productivity of
traditional industries. Attached is a copy of an internal
working paper to address some of the issues facing us in the
regulatory process for the New Economy. We would be pleased
to discuss any of these items in more detail at your
convenience.
Thank you very much for your invitation to participate in
this forum. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
THE NEW ECONOMY
An Office of Advocacy Working Paper(6)
The Emergence of The New Economy as The Dominant Sector of
the U.S. GDP
The decade of the 1990s has seen the rapid growth of
the high-technology sector on all fronts:
ú Internet-dot com companies from B2C to B2B to portals
to personal home pages
ú Wireless telecommunications-with digital clarity,
Internet and global links
ú Personal computers-with scanners, camera, color
printers and wireless links
ú Shrink-wrap software-from office suites to games to
specialized business tools
ú Installed computers-from servers to networked business
systems to supercomputers
ú Embedded microprocessors and computers-from automobiles
to home appliances to PDAs with wireless capability to
intelligent factory robots
ú Satellite communication-from TV dishes to global
instant telecommunications
ú Biotech-from genetic mapping to new life-saving
products
ú Medical devices-from non-invasive diabetes monitors to
life-saving implants
ú Materials-from "smart skins" for aircraft to improved
fire-proof home insulation
ú Environmental-from improved emission control systems to
"brownfield" mitigation bacteria.
ú Energy-from biomass co-generation plants to automated
windmill generators to smarter, energy-efficient appliances
ú Entertainment-from personal and networked
computer/Internet games to CD-ROMs to DVDs to 3-D vision
systems to streaming video Internet programs to 400 channels
of TV to digital video cameras and editing systems for
consumers.
As impressive as these new technologies are to the
users, to the economists they provide a major shift in our
economy. Many economists credit the high-tech sector with
significant improvements in productivity which are
permeating all industries and which are supporting the
longest sustained economic growth period in our nation's
history.
Certainly, in their own industry sectors, the high-tech
businesses have created remarkable growth, as shown by the
following:
ú The growth of the high-tech industries has outstripped
the traditional industries in the U.S. economy. In 1999, the
U.S. electronics, computer and software industries employed
5.0 million workers, compared to 2.6 million in the
automobile and related industries (manufacturing,
distribution and marketing, after-market, repair and
services sectors, and rental), and 1.0 million in the
chemicals industry. The high-tech industries grew from 3.77
million employees in 1993 to 4.99 million employees in 1999,
with most of this growth (1.13 million employees) in the
services areas (IT and software and computer-related
services).(7)
ú In the information technology area the growth of new,
small companies providing software services and products has
been explosive in the past decade. In 1997, there were
231,000 establishments in the new high-tech (computer
programming, data processing and other computer-related
services industries). This is more than three times greater
than the Census Bureau's reported number of these
establishments in 1994. These firms employed 2.2 million
people and their addition to the GDP was $306.8 billion.
This industry is dominated by small firms, with the average
employment less than five. Eighty percent of these firms had
less than $2 million in annual revenue.(8)
ú The growth of the Information Technology sector has
been remarkable in the recent past. In 1992, Information
Technology employment represented just 2.92 percent of total
U.S. employment, but accounted for 5.54 percent of total
employment growth between 1992 and 1996. In recent years,
this growth has been even higher, with the IT industries
accounting for 11.57 percent of total employment growth
between 1995 and 1996. In 1992, the IT sector employment was
39,095, and this grew to 518,525 in 1996, with all but
144,810 of that employment coming from small businesses.(9)
ú The biotech industry grew from 79,000 employees in 1993
to 153,000 employees in 1999, with revenue increasing from
$8.1 billion to $18.6 billion respectively.(10)
ú In some regions of the country, the growth of the high-
tech sectors dominated the traditional sectors. For example,
in San Diego, the payroll of the high-tech (electronics,
computers, wireless communications, Internet, biotech and
life-sciences) industries grew from $4.9 billion to $8.6
billion over the period of 1990 to 1998 (a growth of $3.7
billion), whereas the traditionally dominate visitor,
agricultural and health services industries grew by only
$419 million, while the defense sector shrank by $662
million.(11) Similar growth has been observed in New York,
Silicon Valley, the Route 128 area of Boston, Austin, Texas,
and other high-tech regions.
The Contribution of Small Businesses to the Technology
Growth.
A major shift occurred in the past two decades-small
businesses became the dominant employer of high-tech
innovators. The small business share of scientists and
engineers has steadily increased as large businesses have
downsized and reduced their investments in corporate
research laboratories. The most recent data from the
National Science Foundation shows that small businesses now
employ more degreed scientists and engineers than large
businesses, and more than the universities and federal labs
combined.(12) The 1995 employment data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Employment of degreed scientists and engineers in
U.S.
This shift of research talent from large businesses and
federal laboratories has been a result of at least two
factors: 1) the downsizing of large firms to remain
competitive in the global market, and 2) the entrepreneurial
nature of the small innovative firms with focused research
programs, stock option incentives to researchers, and
availability of venture capital.(13)
Small businesses have always been major contributors to
the innovation process since the founding of our country.
The entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with strong patent laws,
have made the U.S. the envy of the world in our ability to
bring innovation to the marketplace. A 1995 report by the
National Academy of Engineering provided valuable insights
into the marketplace breakthroughs brought about by small
companies. The report states:
"The principal economic function of small
entrepreneurial high-tech companies is to probe,
explore, and sometimes develop the frontiers of the
U.S. economy-products, services, technologies,
markets-in search of unrecognized and otherwise ignored
opportunities for economic growth and development."
(14)
This report focused on the "chaos" created in the
marketplace by new companies. History has shown us that
large companies with entrenched market positions tend to
resist major market changes (from Western Union bypassing
the telephone, to the introduction of the personal computers
by small startups). Small companies bring new products and
services to the "early adopters" in markets, and test the
market potential for innovations. Generally, these new
innovations are subsequently brought to the mass markets by
the larger companies, through acquisition of the small
companies, licensing of the technologies, and/or further
research and development of the products.
Past research from the Office of Advocacy documents the
innovation productivity of small business is high as
reported by the Office of Economic Research, Office of
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business in the 1994 President's Report
on the State of Small Business, Chapter 3, Innovation by
Small Firms: (15)
ú Small firms produce 55 percent of innovations. Small
firms produce twice as many product innovations per employee
as large firms, including the employees of firms that do not
innovate. This is also true of significant innovations.
ú Small firms obtain more patents per sales dollar, even
though large firms are more likely to patent a discovery,
implying that small firms have more discoveries.
ú Large firms receive 26 percent of their research and
development dollars from the federal government and are more
dependent on federal R&D dollars than small firms, which
receive only 11 percent of their R&D funds from the federal
government.
ú A federal R&D dollar to a small firm is more than four
times as likely to be used for basic research as a federal
R&D dollar to a large firm.
ú The rate of return on R&D expenditures is 26 percent
for both small and large firms, but only 14 percent for
firms not involved with a university. The estimated rates of
return on total R&D for firms with a university relationship
are 30 percent for large firms and 44 percent for small
firms.
ú Among the important innovations by U.S. small firms in
the 20th century are the airplane, audio tape recorder,
double-knit fabric, fiber optic examining equipment, heart
valve, optical scanner, pacemaker, personal computer, soft
contact lenses, the zipper, and digital wireless
communication.
Research on the New Economy. Finally, Advocacy has
implemented a number of economic research programs to
supplement the meager information available on the New
Economy companies. These include new methodologies in the
measurement of changes in emerging technology sectors even
before they are identified in the NAICS system. One such
research project identified the issues in analyzing emerging
technology sectors by studying the changes in trade
membership directories.(16) Another study looked at the
regional characteristics of a recent successful high-tech
cluster in San Diego, CA.(17) The Office of Advocacy also
studied the characteristics of small, high-tech firms to
better understand the nature of these businesses.(18) The
patterns of foreign patent filing by small companies was
studied to determine the importance of this global
protection to the high-tech sector.(19) Using the new BITS
files developed for the Office of Advocacy, the longitudinal
analysis of small high-tech firms in the rural communities
was studied.(20)
The staff of the Office of Economic Research for the
Office of Advocacy has prepared analyses on the impact of
the New Economy. Advocacy's research estimates that 85
percent of small firms will be conducting business over the
Internet by the year 2002.(21) Business-to-business e-
commerce, while still a small aspect of this new economy, is
growing rapidly; some project a compound annual growth rate
of 41 percent over the next five years. It is unclear which
small business sectors will benefit most from these
trends-and which will face new challenges. Other studies on
the New Economy can be viewed on the Advocacy web site at
http://www.sba.gov/advo/.
Future Challenges for the Office of Advocacy in the New
Economy.
The only certainty about the New Economy is that it
will bring change. And that change will involve new and
unforeseen regulatory issues in a variety of federal
agencies. Further, most of those regulations will impact
small businesses and the ability of small high-tech
businesses to bring these new innovations to the
marketplace. The related certainty is that small, high-tech
companies do not have adequate representation in Washington
to ensure that their voice is heard on issues of importance
to them. It is therefore, incumbent upon the future of the
Office of Advocacy to anticipate that the requirement for
technological competence will grow. The Office of Advocacy
has often been the early warning system to alert the small,
high-tech companies that new legislation and/or regulations
are on the horizon.
The public policy issues are numerous and thorny.
Significant debate has already started on some of them:
ú Taxation of goods and services sold over the Internet
ú Privacy issues on large, sophisticated databases
ú Fraud and identity theft
ú Patent and general intellectual property reform
ú Copyright and trademark protection-especially on the
Internet
ú Internet new top-level domain-name registration
ú Encryption controls and export
ú Exportation of e-commerce goods and services
ú Unsolicited e-mail
ú Network integrity and security
ú Internet infrastructure issues in rural and central
urban regions
ú Internet gambling
ú Uniformity of law-local, state, federal and
international
ú The digital divide
ú Education-K through 12 and continuing adult education
and job training
ú Privacy and insurance issues for genetic testing
ú Streamlined insurance reimbursement for new medical
products and services
ú Extended patent life for medical products that involve
long clinical trials
ú Regulatory impacts on new medical and environmental
technologies
ú Improvements in the NAICS system to capture economic
data on New Economy industries earlier in the process
Even the most expert cannot predict where the new
economy will take us. The road is strewn with potholes, as
well as opportunities for small business. It is fair to
conclude that "New Economy" issues will preoccupy the Office
of Advocacy for some time to come.
ENDNOTES
1. More information on this topic and the role of Dr.
Frederick Emmons Terman of Stanford as the "Father of
Silicon Valley" is provided in a white paper by the author
entitled A New View of Government, University and Industry
Partnerships, 2000, Office of Advocacy.
2. See http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs198tot.pdf
3. More information on this topic can be obtained from the
testimony provided by the author before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment of the House Committee on Science on
May 2, 1996. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/testimony/0596test.html .
4. See The Process and Analysis Behind ACE-Net, published
by the Office of Advocacy at https://ace-
net.sr.unh.edu/pub/wel/sba-rpt.htm
5. See http://www.ace-net.org
6. The views expressed are those of the author, Terry E.
Bibbens, Entrepreneur in Residence, Office of Advocacy, and
do not necessarily represent the views of the Office of
Advocacy, the U.S. Small Business Administration or the
Administration.
7. Cyberstates, 4.0: U.S. High-Tech Employment, Appendix
A.1, 2000. AeA, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, North Building,
Suite 600, Washington, DC. 20004
8. The New High-Tech Entrepreneurs, page 4, 1998. Nathan
Associates, Inc., 2101 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1200, Arlington,
VA 22210.
9. Establishment Employment Change and Survival, 1992-1996,
with Special Focus on Information Technology Industries,
Table 1(a), page 6, February 2000. Final Report prepared by
Dr. Richard J. Boden, Jr., for the Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
10. Annual Biotechnology Industry Reports, 1993-1999. Ernst
& Young, LLP, New York.
11. Developing High-Technology Communities: San Diego, April
2000. Report by Innovation Associates, Inc., under contract
to the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
12. From NSF Internet web site at
http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/.
13. A New View Of Government, University and Industry
Partnerships, Page 9, 2000. Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small
Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
14. Risk and Innovation: The Role and Importance of Small
High-tech Companies in the U.S. Economy, page 39, 1995.
National Academy of Engineering Press, Washington, DC.
15. For more details, see the Office of Advocacy's Internet
home page at:
http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/stats/fact1.html
16. See Measuring Contribution of Small Business to Industry
Job Growth by Data in Business Association Directories,
April 30, 1999. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs191tot.pdf.
17. Developing High-Technology Communities: San Diego, April
2000. Report by Innovation Associates, Inc., under contract
to the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration, Washington, DC 20416. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs198tot.pdf.
18. A Survey of High Technology Firms, February, 1999, by
Cordes, Hertzfeld and Vonortas, The George Washington
University, for the Office of Advocacy, Washington, DC. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs189tot.pdf.
19. Foreign Patenting Behavior in Small and Large Firms,
1996, by Mary Ellen Mogee and Associates for the Office of
Advocacy, Washington, DC. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs167.html.
20. Information Technology, Firm Size, and Rural Economic
Growth, July 1999, by Jed Kelko, Harvard University, for the
Office of Advocacy. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs201tot.pdf.
21. Small Business Expansions in Electronic Commerce, June
2000, Victoria Williams, Office of Advocacy. See
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/e_comm2.pdf.